Grok

An Evaluation of Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Case from T.M. Scanlon’s Contractualist Moral Theory Perspective

T.M. Scanlon (1940–), a leading contractualist philosopher, redefines moral obligation in What We Owe to Each Other (1998) as principles that no one could reasonably reject after impartial reflection. Contractualism is not a hypothetical bargain like Rawls’s veil of ignorance but a test of mutual acceptability: moral rules must respect individuals as rational agents, ensuring reciprocity and dignity. It emphasizes “reasonable rejection”: a principle is unjust if it imposes undue burdens on some without justification, prioritizing interpersonal respect over aggregate utility. From this lens, Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s 2023 conviction for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (寻衅滋事罪)—for forwarding low-impact Twitter posts on art, emotion, theory, and history—fails contractualism’s core test: the judiciary’s principles of “order” and “national security” are reasonably rejectable, denying Chen’s dignity as a rational inquirer, while his resistance embodies the contractualist demand for justifiable reciprocity.

The Judiciary’s Unrejectable Burden: Principles No One Could Accept

Scanlon’s contractualism demands principles that withstand reasonable scrutiny from all affected parties. The Kunming judicial system—Judge Pu Huijun, Prosecutor Ge Bin, and appellate Judge Li Xiangyun—“sorted” Chen’s posts (e.g., the “umbrella girl” cartoon symbolizing resilience, June 4th candlelight evoking memory, political spectrum analyses, Trump’s communism critiques, Mao’s revised works) as “false information disrupting public order,” imposing an 18-month sentence. With under 100 retweets, near-zero followers, and no verifiable disruption, this imposes an unreasonable burden: the “high education implies knowing falsehood” presumption burdens intellectuals with preemptive guilt, rejectable by any rational agent valuing inquiry. Procedural opacities—non-public trials, denied defenses, suppressed prison letters, selective enforcement (state media unscathed)—compound the injustice: no one could reasonably accept a system where dialogue is denied, reciprocity forsaken, and dignity conditional on conformity.

The “pocket crime” vagueness exemplifies contractualism’s failure: a principle of arbitrary punishment rejects itself, as it burdens the vulnerable without reciprocal justification. Scanlon would argue this violates the “reasonable rejectability” test—Chen, as a rational agent, cannot accept principles that silence his voice without cause, eroding mutual respect.

Chen Jingyuan’s Contractualist Resistance: Demanding Justifiable Principles

Amid this imbalance, Chen’s Prison Blood Letter enacts Scanlon’s moral reasoning: invoking Gödel’s incompleteness to affirm reason’s limits, he demands principles no one could reject—open discourse, measured justice, wisdom over sycophancy. SOC theory—positing posts as harmless “micro-disturbances” amid judicial cascade—offers a reciprocal justification: harm is mutual, not unilateral, urging a shared horizon of acceptability. His vow of “life without end, struggle without cease” and lifelong accountability for his accusers embodies contractualist reciprocity: addressing the burdens imposed, seeking principles that honor all as rational equals.

The Verdict: A Rejectable Injustice, a Plea for Reciprocal Dignity

Scanlon’s contractualism indicts the Chen case as a moral non-starter: principles of vague punishment and selective silence are reasonably rejectable, denying the dignity of rational agency. The judiciary’s claims, unmoored from reciprocity, fracture moral space. Yet, Chen’s reasoned resistance restores it: a call for principles we can all accept, where inquiry flourishes in mutual respect. The case is not ethical void, but a summons to contractual harmony—let no one reject justice, lest we all bear its burden. In this best of rejectable worlds, Chen’s voice endures: a contractualist’s plea for the dignity we owe each other.